Happy New Year. It seems we’ve rung in the new by hanging Bush’s bete noire. Ding-dong, Saddam is dead. New Year coincided with an important Muslim holiday as well, Eid Al-Adha, celebrating the end of the hajj, in the last month of the Islamic calendar:
The Festival of the Sacrifice commemorates the God’s gift of the ram in place of the biblical patriarch Ibrahim’s (Abraham’s) son Isma’il (Ishmael). (In Judaism and Christianity, the child in this story is Ishmael’s brother Isaac.) During the festival, families that can afford to do so sacrifice an animal such as a sheep, goat, camel, or cow, and then divide the meat among themselves, the poor, and friends and neighbours.
I suppose you could look on Saddam’s execution as a sacrifice of sorts, but for what, and to whom?
Morbid curiousity led me to the cell-phone video of the execution. I watched up to the point of the hanging, and stopped. It is a profoundly depressing piece of history. A number of commentators have remarked on its similarity to the Al Qaeda beheading videos, and I would have to agree.
Saddam’s execution takes place in a small, dark cell, cement walls, dimly lit; according to one account I heard, the floors are still stained in places by the blood of those who had died before him, by his orders. The guards and executioners wear ski masks and civilian clothes. At the end, they taunt Hussein. There are shouts of “Moqtada, Moqtada, Moqtada!” in support of Moqtada al-Sadr, the radical Shi’ite cleric and militia leader.
God knows how many times this video has been seen by now. Enough to inflame the Sunni Arab world, furious at the shabby, degrading way a Sunni former head of state was dispatched. Enough to demonstrate the degree to which Shi’ite militias have infiltrated the government of “New Iraq” – or are the government, more accurately.
Enough to show the proportion of justice to revenge.
There’s been a considerable amount of debate on the culpability of American authorities in this execution. Our government claims to have had nothing to do with the decision. I’ve heard credible accounts that American officials were suprised by the haste of the whole process, the speed with which the execution was conducted. And on the one hand, it’s hard to understand why American authorities would encourage an action certain to provoke more sectarian violence. On the other, the cynical part of me wonders if more violence was needed to justify the “surge” in American troops the Bush Administration so very much wants. As well, one should never underestimate the extent to which the Bush Administration can utterly fuck things up. And the conspiratorial aspect of my nature wonders about the secrets Saddam takes with him. After all, he was our man in the Iraq/Iran War before he was our Hitler d’jour.
In the end, I’m not sure it matters. The perception will be that America was behind Saddam’s execution, and perceptions are as potent a fuel as realities, it seems.
Yeah, he was a brutal dictator; he murdered thousands of people, and I’m not blind to the poetic justice of his being put down like a dog in the same execution chamber where he’d had people slaughtered in his name. But this was not the kind of justice I want done in mine. Blood spilled over blood, staining the hands of us all.
If it were done when ’tis done, then ’twere well
It were done quickly: if the assassination
Could trammel up the consequence, and catch
With his surcease success; that but this blow
Might be the be-all and the end-all here,
But here, upon this bank and shoal of time,
We’d jump the life to come. But in these cases
We still have judgement here; that we but teach
Bloody instructions, which, being taught, return,
To plague the inventor; this even-handed justice
Commends the ingredients of our poisoned chalice
To our own lips.
1
By richard
Thanks Lisa – I didn’t have time to post on this, and am glad you did. Saddam deserved the worst punishment permitted. But this rush to execute was uncalled for and brutal – it was supposed to be a grim but dignified affair, and it was anything but. To the Sunnis watching it, it reflected all their worst fears of what life for them will be like in the future. So expect yet more bloodshed and misery in Iraq.
January 2, 2007 @ 12:20 pm | Comment
2
By THM
As an opponent to capital punishment Richard, I’m curious about your thoughts on this. You have stated (and I respect that) you are opposed to capital punishment, but you seem to welcome it for Saddam (as do I). However, having watched the unedited version of his hanging, I have mixed emotions.
I’m not challenging you, I’m just curious. I believe Saddam was deserving of capital punishment, yet I’m not so sure justice was served and I resent the fact that footage of his execution was leaked.
In my opinion, he deserved his sentence, but for some reason I feel conflicted about the way it was carried out and I don’t really feel that it has solved anything.
(I have the unedited version of the video if you wish for me to send you a copy)
January 2, 2007 @ 2:23 pm | Comment
3
By Flabbergasted
He that lives by shall also die by the same- Saddam was a brutal man whose death I shed no tear for but the practicality of the way and the timing of how and when this was done does not show sensitivity and wisdom. This shows the lack of coordination and consultation that the US governement have on the running of the Iraq affairs.
On the side of more troops , I am personally a strong supporter of over whelming force when you want to attack and theh subsequently control the territory that you have conquered.
I believe another 25,000 men is insufficient. How about at least 100,000 MT more to make sure that every inch of Iraq is controlled well and stability is restored. The reasons most American public does not support the war was not becuase of the intentions part of the war but the lack of success and progress in achieving it’s objective. Rumsfield’s philosophy of fighting the war on the cheap was disingenious and incompetent. Go in with overwhelming force and make sure you win and then restore order. They did the first but did not have enough troops to do the second. We would now be talking of orderly withdrawals of US troops instead of possibility of running away with tail behind their legs type of withdrawal
January 2, 2007 @ 2:35 pm | Comment
4
By Flabbergasted
He that lives by shall also die by the same- Saddam was a brutal man whose death I shed no tear for but the practicality of the way and the timing of how and when this was done does not show sensitivity and wisdom. This shows the lack of coordination and consultation that the US governement have on the running of the Iraq affairs.
On the side of more troops , I am personally a strong supporter of over whelming force when you want to attack and theh subsequently control the territory that you have conquered.
I believe another 25,000 men is insufficient. How about at least 100,000 MT more to make sure that every inch of Iraq is controlled well and stability is restored. The reasons most American public does not support the war was not becuase of the intentions part of the war but the lack of success and progress in achieving it’s objective. Rumsfield’s philosophy of fighting the war on the cheap was disingenious and incompetent. Go in with overwhelming force and make sure you win and then restore order. They did the first but did not have enough troops to do the second. We would now be talking of orderly withdrawals of US troops instead of possibility of running away with tail behind their legs type of withdrawal
January 2, 2007 @ 2:36 pm | Comment
5
By richard
THM, I don’t believe in capital punishment for anyone. I wasn’t mournful when Saddam or Timothy McVeigh were put to death because their sins were beyond forgiveness, but I still believe capital punishment is wrong.
The way Saddam was executed was lurid, sleazy and foolish. Foolish, becuase there were so many crimes he should have been tried for. I was disgusted by the whole garish spectacle.
January 2, 2007 @ 3:21 pm | Comment
6
By b1gdon
I too don’t beleive in the death penalty, but not because of the inherent wrongness of killing someone who is a murderer, I think that is actually justice, but because the state can’t be counted on to apply it fairly.
As far as Saddam goes, he played a different game than the rest of us. Our rules and laws are designed to protect us, the people, from the power of the State. Saddam was that State. He chose to become powerful and rule a nation. He used fear, violence, murder, war, and genocide to achieve and hold his power. His crimes are obvious and open for the whole world to see, more trials are just a pointless waste of time, money and most importantly…lives (how many lawyers and judges got clipped during trial). So I’m glad they didn’t do another retrial and I’m glad they did it quick.
And to be honest with you, I’m glad that he was heckled and taunted in his final moments. He got off far far far far (x100) lighter than thousands of his victims. In a perfect world, they would have just dumped him naked out of the back of a van in Sadr City and let the people that he terroized exact their own justice.
The execution of Saddam is not a deterent to tyrants and butchers, for the most part, they know going in that in the game the play, there is only victory or death.
January 3, 2007 @ 2:16 am | Comment
7
By richard
Unfortunately, the taunting sent a terrible signal to the Sunnis and has justifiably ignited new fears that Sunnis are fair game. I shed no tears for Saddam, but if you have to kill him do it in a way that tells Sunns you are seeking justice, not bloody retribution.
Doing it quick was a bad idea. Many Kurds are saying it left Saddam off the hook for other crimes he wasn’t tried for. Why the rush? Let him rot in his cell a few more years if it helps bring to a close all of his hideous crimes.
January 3, 2007 @ 2:33 am | Comment
8
By Jeremiah
Juan Cole had an interesting article in Salon regarding the execution.
NOT as comparison, but as a frame of reference: The International Military Tribunal in Tokyo met for two years from 1946-1948. The tribunal ended in November of 1948. The seven defendants who received death sentences (16 others were given life, 2 others were given fixed sentences) were executed about a month later on December 23, 1948.
January 3, 2007 @ 3:07 am | Comment
9
By nanheyangrouchuan
I think the hope was to cut the head off of the snake and the insurgent body will die. Either the insurgency will die or get worse. As it stands now, the Saudis are threatening to intervene and the Iranians are threatening to expand their presence.
January 3, 2007 @ 9:19 am | Comment
10
By mingtian
From a strategic point of view, executing Saddam was a mistake for the US.
In the eyes of the Arab world, the Americans will be forever blamed for killing a strong Arab leader. Saddam will now be considered an heroic martyr.
The Sunnis will get revenge against the Shias. This is a fact.
The war in Iraq will only get longer and more bloody.
How will the US get out of this trap they created for themselves?
January 3, 2007 @ 11:02 am | Comment
11
By nanheyangrouchuan
“In the eyes of the Arab world, the Americans will be forever blamed for killing a strong Arab leader. Saddam will now be considered an heroic martyr.”
But the people cheering on Iraqi TV were backed by Iran (and waving a big picture of Ayatollah Khomeini).
January 3, 2007 @ 11:27 am | Comment
12
By Flabbergasted
nanheyangrouchuan
Has a point there. I believe it is the same Saddam that has caused the death of 100,000s of Iranian men in the Iran Iraq conflict. I believe one generation of what would have been middle aged are no more because of this tyrant. Most of them gassed in the war. If you go to Teheran most of the middle and senior managers are women not that the men are not capable but died in the war.
So they should be rejoicing in Teheran.
We should also ask the question , who was backing Saddam in this war and provide him the gas?
January 3, 2007 @ 12:52 pm | Comment
13
By The Iron Buddha
I’m (generally) against capital punishment as well. As said above, the state doesn’t always apply it fairly and there is just too much room for prejudice and human error from the time of arrest to the noose, electric chair or whatever. But more importantly, it deprives the offender any chance of comprehending the damage he has done and feeling real sorrow for it. Any chance to make amends is lost.
Now, having said that, I don’t think that there is any doubt Saddam is a murderer and I seriously doubt there was any chance of repentence so I don’t really have a lot of problems with seeing him hang in principle. Perhaps we should reserve capital punishment only for our leaders?
What I think was wrong was how it was done. Politically, the day was wrong and it looked like he was being executed by a Shiite gang. Principally it shouldn’t have happend until far in the future. He should have stood trial for his other crimes so that it would have been more difficult for people to deny these crimes in the future. And the event should have been more dignified. Not for him, but for us. None of Saddam’s victims had the luxury of an even remotely fair trial or were allowed any dignity in execution. We should have permitted Saddam those things, to remind ourselves that we are not like him.
January 3, 2007 @ 1:15 pm | Comment
14
By Porlock Junior
Just ran into the perfect summary over in Millard Fillmore’s Bathtub http://timpanogos.wordpress.com/
“When you have to kill a man it costs nothing to be polite.”
* Winston Churchill, The Second World War: Moral of the Work, vol. III, The Grand Alliance (1950)
January 3, 2007 @ 1:33 pm | Comment
15
By xueleifun
A Lynching…
(via ESWN)
http://tinyurl.com/ynzv7k
January 3, 2007 @ 1:49 pm | Comment
16
By richard
Excellent points, Buddah and Porlock.
Flabbergasted, most Americans don’t want to deal with the horrifying reality that Rumsfeld warmly embraced Saddam as an ally in the early 80s and provided him with all kinds of toys, including chemical weapons. It makes our invasion of Iraq even more sickening, more absurd.
January 3, 2007 @ 1:54 pm | Comment
17
By OtherLisa
And that’s exactly why I posted the photo of Rumsfeld shaking Saddam’s hand…lest we forget.
And the Macbeth quote. Too eerie. Especially the last bit:
“But in these cases
We still have judgement here; that we but teach
Bloody instructions, which, being taught, return,
To plague the inventor; this even-handed justice
Commends the ingredients of our poisoned chalice
To our own lips.”
January 3, 2007 @ 2:48 pm | Comment
18
By nanheyangrouchuan
It was the US gov’ts (ie Dumbsfeld and Darth Cheney) support for the Shah and our simple refusal to hand him over to the new gov’t that created the problem with Iran, then we had to support Saddam to counter Iran, then we had to invade Iraq to get rid of Saddam.
The US gov’t’s biggest problem is its lack of historical knowledge of these tiny corners of the world or willful ignorance of local expertise. The Vietnamese had no intention of allying with China and Castro wanted the US to support and invest in his island.
It is telling that Americans with signficant living experience and good native dialect skills in the middle east are routinely rejected for intel analyst positions while Ivy League bookworms long on theory and very short on scuffed hands and dirty knees decide US foriegn policy.
January 3, 2007 @ 2:53 pm | Comment
19
By OtherLisa
See “China hands” for a further example of that phenomena…
January 3, 2007 @ 3:11 pm | Comment
20
By Raj
But, Lisa, it wasn’t your (the US’) decision – it was that of the Iraqi people. They wanted an execution, even if the way it was carried out was regretable.
January 3, 2007 @ 9:21 pm | Comment
21
By nanheyangrouchuan
I’d actually exclude “china hands” from this group as China hands have become accustomed to kowtowing to Beijing and giving the Chinese whatever they want. They’ve pretty much lost all semblence of backbone when it comes to dealing with China and at the same time they have quite a bit of disdain for the country they are from and have a general tendency to intensely look down at not just people from their own country and similar cultures but other “old hands” who only think they know as much about China as the “old hand” in question.
Also, someone like Paulson doesn’t count as an “old hand” because all he has done is fly in an out in first class, stay in 5 star hotels and go to pre-arranged events equipped with interpreters, etc.
Let’s see him barter for fruit just once.
January 3, 2007 @ 11:51 pm | Comment
22
By OtherLisa
Nan, I’m referring to the WW2 era China hands who were forced out in the McCarthy era. I should have clarified that.
Raj, I do realize that the Iraqi government made this decision (or the Mahdi Army – hard to tell the difference). But the US fought this war, Saddam was “our” guy before we were against him, US troops captured him and delivered him to his execution. It was a sad, tawdry spectacle, another act of revenge in a vicious cycle of them. The best we can hope for is that it will all burn itself out from sheer exhaustion, but as Richard says above if Sunni people take this as a signal of how they will be treated in post-Saddam Iraq, that will be a long time coming.
January 4, 2007 @ 1:26 am | Comment
23
By nanheyangrouchuan
“Nan, I’m referring to the WW2 era China hands who were forced out in the McCarthy era. I should have clarified that.”
You mean the “old hands” who convinced Truman to stop Chiang Kai Shek from destroying Mao or the old hands who convinced Nixon to abandon the Tibetans in favor of opening relations with China.
“Vietnam hands” would have been the ones to inform Ike, Kennedy and Johnson not to try to stop the unification of Vietnam and that the Vietnamese wanted nothing to do with China.
January 4, 2007 @ 1:33 am | Comment
24
By OtherLisa
John Service et. al.
I have to get to work and haven’t had enough coffee for a fight.
January 4, 2007 @ 1:45 am | Comment
25
By Bukko in Australia
There are so many historical precedents for this lynching of a head of state. Not good ones, of course. The photo of Benito Mussolini and Clara Petracci hanging upside down after being butchered by Italian partisans in 1945 comes to mind. Also the Soviets’ murderous Afghan puppet Najibullah being slaughtered by the Taliban in 1996 after hiding in the U.N. embassy in Kabul. His body was hung from a lamppost after they cut his nuts off and dragged him behind a jeep. Going further back in history (but into a current movie), let’s not forget Marie Antoinette, who had alterations made to her neckline after a farcical show trial. I don’t believe that’s company the U.S. wants to be included in, though.
One further thought: the visual meme for this war will be photos and movies of horrific things done in secret prisons, caught on electronic recording devices and snuck out for public viewing. Beheadings by terrorists, torture at Abu Ghraib, hanging Saddam — that’s how this disaster will be remembered in the future. (Is that an oxymoron — “remembered in the future”?)
January 4, 2007 @ 8:51 am | Comment
26
By Maydayog
Flabbergasted, most Americans don’t want to deal with the horrifying reality that Rumsfeld warmly embraced Saddam as an ally in the early 80s and provided him with all kinds of toys, including chemical weapons. It makes our invasion of Iraq even more sickening, more absurd.
If a picture speaks a thousand words, what of this one:
Diplomacy is an art where you sometimes involve yourself with people that you may not necessarily like, or even stomach. The pictures of Rumsfeld/Hussein and Albright/Jong-Il speak to that.
Further, the US as a prolifigate supplier of chemical weapons? You need to do more research, Richard. In terms of supplying Hussein with chemical weapons, we lagged far behind suppliers such as Germany and France.
In fact, when taking a look at how the US stands as a supplier of weapons to Saddam Hussein’s regime, please reference this PDF: Imported weapons to Iraq (IRQ) in 1975-2005
Even with a huge military presence in Iraq for the past several years, the US does not account for even 1% of the arms supplied to Iraq.
Your post supports the saying that if you repeat something enough times, it eventually becomes the truth.
January 6, 2007 @ 2:42 am | Comment
27
By richard
Did Albright go to NK to sell chemical weapons to Kim?
I don’t care if we sold more or less chemical weapons to Saddam than did this or that country. We sold him chemical weapons, that was part of Rumsfeld’s charter. The fact that the UK sold more and that somehow this mitigates Rumsfeld’s dealings with a murderous despot is kind of quaint.
Repeat: Did Madeline Albright go to Kim to provide him with chemical weapons, or weapons of any kind? Waiting…
A more apt parallel may be Carter’s and Reagan’s assistance to the Mujahadeen in Afghanistan. But they hadn’t emerged as ruthless murderous thugs yet. Rummy knew exactly with whom he was dealing.
January 6, 2007 @ 8:18 am | Comment
28
By Bukko in Australia
I looked at the info in that link Maydayog and it referred to dollar value of CONVENTIONAL weapons. For sure, the Russians gave a lot of weapons to Saddam, and he bought French Mirage jets, etc. But what the left is crying hypocrisy about is chemical weapons. And the fact that France, Russia and the others (except for the U.K.) didn’t attack Saddam for possessing the same weapons that THEY SOLD HIM.
I’ve heard the joke around Washington before the war was “Of course we know Saddam has chemical weapons. We’ve got the sales receipts.” Turns out that was wrong too.
January 6, 2007 @ 12:45 pm | Comment
29
By Maydayog
I don’t care if we sold more or less chemical weapons to Saddam than did this or that country. We sold him chemical weapons, that was part of Rumsfeld’s charter. The fact that the UK sold more and that somehow this mitigates Rumsfeld’s dealings with a murderous despot is kind of quaint.
This is exactly my point. You conflate diplomatic dealings (which is actually what Rumsfeld/Hussein was about, as was Albright/Kim) with the sale of chemical weapons.
According to official records of the meeting, the sale of NBC weapons were not discussed in his meeting with Saddam. In a later meeting with Tariq Azziz, Rumsfeld even expressed concern over the use of chemical weapons.
Do you have a source that states when and where Rumsfeld actually sold chemical weapons to the Iraqi government? Or is your claim simply something you heard?
Beyond that, did the United States government ever sell actual chemical weapons to the government of Iraq? A slight bit of research, and an avoidance of hyperbolic internet rumors, would lead you to one conclusion– no, we did not.
I doubt you’ll do such research, however.
Repeat: Did Madeline Albright go to Kim to provide him with chemical weapons, or weapons of any kind? Waiting…
Oh, you mean aside from the deal to provide two light-water nuclear reactors to North Korea?
That kind of thing?
As it is, note that my arguments are backed up by facts and sources. Your argument is backed up by a photograph.
Interesting.
January 8, 2007 @ 2:55 am | Comment
30
By Maydayog
But what the left is crying hypocrisy about is chemical weapons. And the fact that France, Russia and the others (except for the U.K.) didn’t attack Saddam for possessing the same weapons that THEY SOLD HIM.
Please do feel free to read what Richard wrote.
I’ll post it for you again:
Richard mentioned conventional weapons in his post, so I felt obligated to include the actual figures involved.
January 8, 2007 @ 3:01 am | Comment